August 19, 2012

Tom Murphy (the physicist at Do the Math Blog) frequently makes the point that U.S. energy use has increased by about 2.9 percent per year since 1650. Here's the graph he shows. He then makes a big deal about how straight it is.

Then he goes from that to saying that, if it continued for another 400 years, the seas would boil from all the heat.

But what he doesn't show you--what he fails to point out--is that the graph is NOT linear (does NOT show exponential growth) at the end.

Here's that same graph, from 1850 to the present.

Do you see the nonlinearity? Well, let me focus in even further. Here is a graph from 1950 to the present.

Now the non-linearity is easily viewable. But let's make it even clearer that Tom Murphy's graph has absolutely zero predictive power. This is the graph from 1950 onward, but not on a logarithmic scale.

You can see that, if you used Tom Murphy's extrapolation, you'd ALREADY be off by a factor of two in predicting U.S. energy use in 2010. So Tom Murphy's extrapolation of the energy trend that he claims to exist is completely specious. It appears true, but it's completely false. There is no trend that can be extended even 4 years into the future, let alone 400.

May 09, 2012

I think the answer to this question is obviously, "Yes." Let's start with the basics: what is GDP? It's the total value of goods and services produced in a given year. And since "value" is not a physical thing, U.S. and world GDP can obviously grow to 100+ times their present values. In fact, I think this is likely by the year 2100, as noted here:

Let's take an example: From roughly 1980 to 2010, Bill Gates' net worth (his "value") increased by on on order of a billion dollars per year. Or let's put it another way: let's say in 1980, his net worth was under $3 million. And by 2010, his net worth was around $30 billion. So over that 30-year period, his "value" increased by a factor of about 10,000. But did anything *physical* associated with him increase by a factor of 10,000? Did he use 10,000 times as much energy, for instance? No, he didn't. (He's not Al Gore, after all. ;-))

So the question is, "Could everyone in the world have the wealth of Bill Gates?" I think the answer not only is "yes," but that would be a wonderful thing.

But let's get to some of the specifics mentioned by Tom Murphy in his post and his responses to comments. His comments on that post are closed, so I'm responding here:

Earth’s physical resources—particularly energy—are limited and may prohibit continued growth within centuries, or possibly much shorter depending on the choices we make.

"Within centuries" is a pretty long time. Regarding the vague, "possibly much shorter," I'd need to know what "possibly much shorter" meant, in order to comment. Do you mean that GDP will stop growing in 80 years? 50 years? 30 years?

So we would likely agree that energy growth will not continue indefinitely.

OK, the economist, the physicist, and the engineer all agree on something. So it must be right. ;-)

First, I’ll just mention that energy growth has far outstripped population growth, so that per-capita energy use has surged dramatically over time—our energy lives today are far richer than those of our great-great-grandparents a century ago [economist nods].

Yes, our energy use per capita has increased from a century ago. But U.S. per capita energy consumption in 2010 is actually lower than it was in 1974:

Again, the physicist, the economist, and the engineer agree. So it must be right. ;-)

"...but the virtual environment probably also requires a supercomputer—by today’s standards—for every virtual voyager. The supercomputer at UCSD consumes something like 5 MW of power. Granted, we can expect improvement on this end, but today’s supercomputer eats 50,000 times as much as a person does, so there is a big gulf to cross. I’ll take some convincing.

OK. The energy use per calculation of computers is coming down by a factor of 100 every decade. It has been for several decades, and appears likely to for the forseeable furture. If today's supercomputers take 50,000 times as much power as a person does, in roughly 23 years, that same supercomputer computing power (i.e., calculations per second) will take only as much electrical power as a person does.

And as long as there are any holdouts, the plan of squeezing energy requirements to some arbitrarily low level fails. Not to mention meeting fixed bio-energy needs.

I'm not sure what "some arbitrarily low level" means. Let's say the world population peaks at 15 billion, and all of them use the energy that the average person in the U.S. uses now (about 10,000 Watts continuously, or 87,600 kWh per year...315 GJ per year). (Check my math.) So that would be about 5,400 quadrillion Btus (quads). Is this not possible? If this is not possible, why is it not possible?

Let’s imagine a world of steady population and steady energy use. I think we’ve both agreed on these physically-imposed parameters. If the flow of energy is fixed, but we posit continued economic growth, then GDP continues to grow while energy remains at a fixed scale. This means that energy—a physically-constrained resource, mind—must become arbitrarily cheap as GDP continues to grow and leave energy in the dust.

Yes, that's right.

How far do you imagine this can go? Will energy get to 1% of GDP? 0.1%? Is there a limit?

No, there is no limit.

But if energy became arbitrarily cheap, someone could buy all of it, and suddenly the activities that comprise the economy would grind to a halt.

This is an error of logic that many people seem to make. I'll give an analogy to illustrate why it's erroneous. Food is inexpensive, and has been getting less expensive in the developed countries for several centuries. Does this mean that "...someone could buy all of it, and suddenly the activities comprise the economy would grind to a halt." Of course not. Food is cheap. That means that, even if it were even possible to buy all the food in the world--any more than it would ever be possible to buy all the energy in the world--then someone would just create more. Why? Because plenty of people know how to create food...or energy. And if it was no longer inexpensive, there'd be an incentive to create it.

Physicist: But is there a floor? How low are you willing to take it? 5%? 2%? 1%?

Economist: Let’s say 1%.

Why should we say 1%? What evidence is there that energy use can't be less than 1% of GDP? Bill Gates' "value" (his "personal domestic product," if you will) increased by $1 billion per year from 1980 to 2010. Does anyone think he spent anywhere near 1% of that ($10 million per year) on energy? No, of course not.

Economist: Yes, I have to retract that statement. If energy is indeed capped at a steady annual amount, then it is important enough to other economic activities that it would not be allowed to slip into economic obscurity.

I'm not sure why any economist would say this. I don't know what part of economic thought is leading him to that conclusion. Things that were previously economically important "slip into economic obscurity" all the time. It used to be horses were hugely economically important. They're not economically important now, except perhaps to the extremely small part of the population involved in horse racing. Similarly, whale oil used to be hugely economically important. It's not now. Polaroid and Kodak used to be huge; they're not now. Things "slip into economic obscurity" all the time. As energy is likely to do.

Physicist: Even early economists like Adam Smith foresaw economic growth as a temporary phase lasting maybe a few hundred years, ultimately limited by land (which is where energy was obtained in that day).

The early economists were wrong about many things, just as the physicists of their time were wrong about many things (e.g., that time was the independent of one's inertial reference frame).

The economists who devise a functioning steady-state economic system stand to be remembered for a longer eternity than the growth dudes. [Economist stares into the distance as he contemplates this alluring thought.]

Economists who "devise a functioning steady-state economics system"? Economists study economies. They can no more "design" economies than physicists (or even engineers ;-)) can.

But I’m thinking more of a zero-sum game here. Fads come and go. Some fraction of GDP will always go toward the fad/innovation/gizmo of the day, but while one fad grows, another fades and withers. Innovation therefore will maintain a certain flow in the economy, but not necessarily growth.

Once again, GDP is the total value of goods and services in an economy. There is no reason to expect that the absolute value of certain goods and services increasing causes the absolutely value of others to decrease by an equal amount. That hasn't been happening for the last 500+ years (using, say, a 20-year rolling average). That is, the world economy has been increasing (using, say, a 20-year rolling average) for the last 500+ years. So the claim that the world economy will remain flat in the future is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Evidence that has yet to be provided.

[I'll share a little-known secret. It's hard to beat a Hostess Ding Dong for dessert. At 5% the cost of fancy desserts, it's not clear how much value the fancy things add.]

If a person freely pays $100 for a dessert, that dessert has $100 of value to that person at that time. It's fine to offer the thought that the person was a dope to spend so much for a dessert. But that doesn't change the fact that its value would be recorded as $100 when calculating GDP.

Finally, even having accepted the limits to energy growth, he initially believed this would prove to be of little consequence to the greater economy. But he had to ultimately admit to a floor on energy price and therefore an end to traditional growth in GDP—against a backdrop fixed energy.

Yes, he "admitted" something that wasn't true. That's very puzzling.

The conversation recreated here did challenge my own understanding as well. I spent the rest of the evening pondering the question: “Under a model in which GDP is fixed—under conditions of stable energy, stable population, steady-state economy: if we accumulate knowledge, improve the quality of life, and thus create an unambiguously more desirable world within which to live, doesn’t this constitute a form of economic growth?”

If GDP is "fixed," then by definition the total value of goods and services is not increasing. But there is nothing in your conversation that gives evidence to the proposition that GDP will ever be "fixed." Your whole argument is based on the proposition that the value of energy relative to the total economy can never drop below 1%, which is a totally arbitrary and unsupported proposition.

I had to concede that yes—it does. This often falls under the title of “development” rather than “growth.” I ran into the economist the next day and we continued the conversation, wrapping up loose ends that were cut short by the keynote speech. I related to him my still-forming position that yes, we can continue tweaking quality of life under a steady regime. I don’t think I ever would have explicitly thought otherwise, but I did not consider this to be a form of economic growth.

If the quality of life is increasing, it's hard to believe the total value of goods and services is not increasing. And in fact, the only place the GDP is not increasing is in your hypothetical world of the future, because, as I noted previously, world GDP has been increasing for more than 500 years (on, say, a 20-year rolling average).

This conversation is my contribution to a series at www.growthbusters.org honoring the 40th anniversary of the Limits to Growth study.

October 14, 2009

I've recently learned that apparently P.Z. Myers has a "thing" about Ray Kurzweil. Specifically, in a Newsweek hatchet piece, Myers is apparently quoted as saying:

"I am completely baffled by Kurzweil's popularity, and in particular the
respect he gets in some circles, since his claims simply do not hold up to even
casually critical examination," writes Myers. He says Kurzweil's Singularity
theories are closer to a deluded religious movement than they are to science.
"It's a New Age spiritualism—that's all it is," Myers says. "Even geeks want to
find God somewhere, and Kurzweil provides it for them."

My one-word reply: "Poppycock."

Ray Kurzweil is respected in futurist circles because he is one of the world's preeminent scholars regarding technological trends, particularly in his field of artificial intelligence.

And his research is completely legitimate science. (Which is obviously not to say that he is never wrong!)

If P.Z. Myers wishes to debate the matter, I'd be happy to do it here, or on his blog, or anywhere.

October 06, 2009

SEE IMPORTANT POSTCRIPTED APOLOGY (otherwise, this post remains the same)

Regular readers of this blog will know that I've posted several times on economic growth in the 21st century. My last several posts unrelated to economic growth have had comments by a fellow who goes by "GK," asking me (and not politely either) when I was going to update my predictions for economic growth in the 21st century.

I forget what led me there, but I came upon a post at a blog called The Futurist that dealt with economic growth in the 21st century. Eventually, I realized that the blog was run by "that guy"..."GK."

Well, to make a long story short, apparently I've been banned from ever commenting on The Futurist again...apparently for "excessive disagreement." Not that any of my comments were offensive...just that they did not agree with The Futurist or include any comments on how brilliant he is. Before I'd realized I'd been banned, I'd composed a comment. I hate to waste writing, so here it is. The quotes are of GK:

"The big assumption here is that these 'human brain equivalents' will function in the same economic way as present humans. There is no basis to support this assumption."

Actually, there is a firm basis to support the idea that a computer human brain equivalent will actually have a bigger impact on economic growth than a human brain. Computers never sleep. They never are addicted to alcohol or drugs. They never go to work distracted by their marital/relationship problem. Etc.

"Aha! But you cannot ignore software."

OK, so don't ignore software. Provide your estimates for when 1 million, 1 billion, and 1 trillion HBEs will be added, including software. (And also not including software, since that is the only way to give an apples-to-apples comparison with my estimates.)

"Again, I am generally in agreement with your December 2003 numbers, so whatever you thought until then has more corroboration that what you think now."

Corroboration, schmorroboration. The accuracy of predictions isn't a function of how many people agree with the prediction. The vast majority of economists agree that economic growth in the 21st century won't be substantially higher than economic growth in the 20th century. This includes Nobel-prize-winning economists such as Robert Lucas Jr. The future will show they are wrong (or else computers will take over the world, and then all bets are off.

If you do your own analysis of the number of human brain equivalents (excluding or including software) added each year up to your predicted time of the singularity in 2060-2065, I think you'll see that the number of HBEs added each year are not compatible with the low rates of economic growth you're predicting.

Or another way of looking at it: If computers are 50% of the economy at the time of the singularity, and computers are increasing in capability by 78% per year at that time, how is it that the overall economy is only growing by 6.5% per year?

P.S. IMPORTANT NOTE: As noted in the comments by GK (aka, The Futurist) I was indeed not banned. There was just some sort of snafu, which was probably my fault. My apologies to GK. However, my point still stands that The Futurist's (GK's) predictions for future economic growth are incompatible with predictions for computing power, since human brains are what cause economic growth. Further, GK's obsession with my re-predicting for 2000-2010 was kind of crazy. If I over-predicted slightly for the period 2000-2010, that really has no effect on my predictions for the 2020s, 2030s, and 2040s, when I expect economic growth to be spectacular...far beyond any historical levels.

February 10, 2009

On Roger Pielke's Prometheus blog, Jonathan Gilligan had some comments about Julian Simon's message with which I disagreed. But that wasn't really relevant to the Prometheus post, so I'm putting responses here.

“When I read The Ultimate Resource II, Simon seems clearly to be saying that we don’t need to worry about running out of oil or any other natural resource because human ingenuity will provide cheap alternative energy sources to replace them, fairly painlessly.”

I mostly agreed with you up to the “fairly painlessly” part. I think Julian Simon’s argument was not that the transitions would be “fairly painless,” but that after the transitions occurred, people would actually be better off. (That there was never going to be a permanent step downward in well-being, due to a permanent lack of a resource.)

“The whole argument of Ultimate Resource II is that scarcity does not exist because resources are not finite.”

No, that can’t possibly be the “whole argument of Ultimate Resource II,” because Julian Simon was an economist, and that argument completely defies the entire premise of economics.

The whole argument of Ultimate Resource II was that the world would not run out of any resources, because resources are not finite…in any ***”useful economic definition”*** of the word:

Note that Julian Simon recognized that, for example, there are a finite number of copper atoms on earth at the present time. (That’s the mathematical definition of “finite.”) But he argued that the number of copper atoms on earth wasn’t meaningful in a “useful economic definition of the word.” A fine example of why this is so has come after his death, with the explosion of wireless communications. And in fact, wireless movement of electrical power is even being developed:

But Julian Simon never said that nothing was “scarce.” No sane economist would ever say that! He said resources were not “finite;” he didn’t say they weren’t “scarce.” Just because something isn’t “finite” doesn’t mean it isn’t “scarce.” For example, we can recycle electronics to recover the copper in them. But that doesn’t mean that the recycling is effortless (costless). If something takes time or money, it is time or money that could be spent on something else. So everything is “scarce,” although the degree of scarcity ranges tremendously (e.g. from paper to diamonds).

P.S. Note his conclusion to the article to which I linked:

" I continue to stand on the ground of non-finiteness, because I have found that leaving this ground causes more bad arguments than standing on it does. While I doubt that many people's judgment will be affected by what I write on this issue, there is little temptation to trim my sails to this wind.

There is little temptation to do that which is offensive to me - "admit" something that I do not believe is so."

January 16, 2008

This is the first in a series of posts that will describe a portable hurricane storm surge barrier that I think could--and should--be built. The barrier would be capable of being deployed to protect approximately 100 miles along the U.S. Gulf Coast or East Coast in a matter of days. I will eventually outline one possible design for such a system. My point in outlining one possible design is not to suggest that such a design is the best design, but simply to illustrate that such a system is in no way some science-fiction fantasy that could never be built and deployed.

The simple fact is that a major hurricane could strike anywhere along the Gulf Coast (1600 miles) or East Coast north to approximately Boston (another approximately 1600 miles). Currently, measures are being designed or envisioned that can partially protect single cities (e.g. levees and flood gates for New Orleans, flood gates for New York City). However, it would make more sense from an economic and engineering standpoint to design something that could protect approximately 100 miles of coastline days before a storm hits, rather than to protect individual cities by designing something that may not be challenged for many decades (during which time better systems could be built).

The damage from hurricane Katrina was virtually all caused by storm surge (rather than wind damage or inland flooding due to rain). Wikipedia currently estimates that the total economic damage to Louisiana and Mississippi may exceed $150 billion. That's just a single hurricane, and a single city. Moving to New York City, it's been estimated that there is an approximately 1-in-4 chance that a Category 3 or hurricane will hit New York City/Long Island in the next 50 years. Here are storm surge maps calculated by the SLOSH computer model, for various hurricanes hitting New York City and Long Island

July 06, 2007

1) The pollution from hydrogen-boron fusion is essentially zero. Per unit of electricity generated, the life cycle pollution impacts from hydrogen boron fusion are less than natural gas, or even wind or photovoltaics (solar cells). (Let alone nuclear fission, oil, or coal.) Even life cycle carbon dioxide emissions from hydrogen-boron fusion are less than for photovoltaics or wind, because the amount of material needed to build a hydrogen-boron plant of a given electrical size is a tiny fraction of the material needed for a similar size plant.

2) The energy is extremely high density (extremely compact). When combined with reason #1, this means that hydrogen-boron fusion plants can be located even in the middle of densely populated cities. A hundred hydrogen-boron fusion plants could be located in the basements of buildings in downtown Manhattan, and could supply all the electricity needed by NYC.

3) Due to reasons #1 and #2, hydrogen-boron fusion completely eliminates the need for a nationwide electrical grid. No more high-tension lines, brownouts or blackouts.

4) Due to reasons #1, #2, and #3, electricity from hydrogen-boron fusion can be delivered to sites hit by disasters long before electricity from conventional sources. After major hurricanes, electrical power is often out in some areas for weeks, or even months. With hydrogen-boron fusion, a tractor-trailer trucks containing hydrogen-boron electrical generating plants could be used to repower a city like New Orleans in less than a week.

5) Hydrogen-boron fusion is continuous, not intermittent. Unlike solar cells and wind, hydrogen-boron can produce as much power as needed, any time needed. An electrical grid powered significantly by photovoltaics or wind would have a horrendous problem trying to match the intermittent supply of those energies with the demand for electricity.

6) Hydrogen-boron fusion can be used to power virtually ANY device. For example, airplanes use petroleum, because it has such high energy density (per unit volume and per unit mass). And the space shuttle’s external fuel tanks contain hydrogen and oxygen. But fusion is roughly a million times more powerful per unit mass than chemical reactions. So the amount of hydrogen required to fly from NY to LAX could literally be found in the bottled water brought on board for passengers to drink. And the space shuttle’s external tanks could be literally replaced by fuel weighing less than the astronauts themselves.

June 18, 2007

Obviously, Iraq in June 2007 is a bloody mess. If you had told me in March 2003 that Saddam’s government would be vanquished by the U.S. military in less than a month, but that the situation inside the country would actually be worse four years later, I wouldn’t have believed you.

The number of U.S. screw-ups in Iraq is so large, that one blog post couldn’t possibly cover all of them in any detail. I’m going to focus on one: the U.S. treatment of the defeated Iraqi military. Maybe at the time, it was not possible to see that the U.S. treatment of the Iraqi military would lead to a terrible result, but it certainly is possible now. So even if the lesson is to be learned for future wars, it would be valuable. But there may even be to recover somewhat even in Iraq.

The primary U.S. screw-up regarding the U.S. military versus the Iraqi military is that we never demanded a formal unconditional surrender by the Iraqi military. Iraqi military was allowed to simply melt back into the populace, with no formal acknowledgement of defeat, and no effort by the U.S. to provide assistance to a large number of armed and trained men who suddenly had no jobs.

Here is something we could have done in April of 2004. However, it seems to me it is something we STILL COULD DO in June of 2007:

1) Identify, to the extent possible, the entire make-up of Saddam Hussein’s military. Branch of service, division, battalion, platoon. Everything. Who were the generals? The colonels? Majors? Captains? Sargents? Privates?

2) Once they have been identified, invite them to sign a binding contract. The contract would require them to give something, and for giving something, they would get something.

3) They would acknowledge that the military of Iraq had been defeated in 2003, and would give their oath on the Quran (or Bible, or other religious text) that they would not participate in any way in any attack on a U.S. soldier for the next 2 years. In fact, they would also be required to inform the U.S. of any knowledge they have of anyone else who had planned or participated in an attack on U.S. troops.

4) They would also give their oath by voice, which would be recorded in a manner that would allow later voice analysis. They would sign their names to the binding contract. They would give a full set of 10 fingerprints. They would give blood that would allow DNA analysis. They would get retinal scans. They would be photographed from all angles. In fact—this would be very controversial—they might even be required to wear ankle bracelets so that the U.S. military could track their movements at all times.

5) In compensation for items 3 and 4, they would get full pay (i.e., what they got under Saddam) for the next 2 years by the U.S. This pay would be obtained directly from the U.S. military. They would also be given the option of either being a member of the new Iraqi military, or any other job of their choosing. If they choose to be a member of the military, they could collect whatever they collect from the Iraqi government. If they chose some other employment, they’d get whatever they could from that employer.

6) At the time the U.S. military paid the members of the Iraqi military, they could be questioned about any recent attacks on U.S. or Iraqi troops. Also, it might be useful to offer bonuses of up to several weeks’ pay for information that ended up leading to the arrest and conviction of perpetrators of attacks. If any Iraqi military member was found to be guilty of an attack on U.S. troops, he would forfeit all remaining pay, and could be prosecuted by the U.S. military, and held for up to two years in a U.S. military prison within Iraq.

These are just ideas of what could be done. But the main aspects are:

1) Every member of the Iraqi military acknowledges defeat, and swears on a religious text not to attack U.S. soldiers,

2) All members of the Iraqi military are identified by multiple methods, such that if they participate in an attack, it may be possible to later identify them. Further, the structure/membership of the Iraqi military is known, right down to platoon/squad level.

3) All members of the Iraqi military are given two years full pay…even if they decide to pursue other careers.

3) The U.S. government does the payments (not the Iraqi government).

4) Because the U.S. government does the payments, it can also question all former military members about any attacks that occur.

Does anyone have any thoughts about this? Does anyone know how to slip this suggestion into President’s or Vice President’s daily reading? ;-)

April 11, 2007

However, I've found an even more remarkable IPCC figure: it's Figure S&M-XXX (it's really buried, so you'll have to really dig down to find it).

It compares normalized global weather-related losses with U.S. patents issued. There is a clear correlation. It's obvious that increasing the number of U.S. patents issued causes normalized global weather-related losses to increase. When will the U.S. Patent Office start behaving responsibly, and stop issuing patents???! (Will it only be when G.W. Bush leaves the Whitehouse?)